Despite important similarities between FSR and the early
 forms of farm management research, differences are apparent
 in the treatment of motivations and the flexibility of
 recommendations emerging from the analysis of.existing
 farming systems. Farm management research assumed that
 successful farmers had to be thrifty, hard-working, profit
 maximizers. They would prosper, expand, and should be
 emulated. As late as 1947, farm management was being
 defined as "the act of judiciously and skillfully managing
 a farm" (Boss and Pond, 1947). Further, much of farm
 management literature tended to be prescriptive in nature,
 indicating what farmers should do to be successful rather
 than trying to understand the logic of the fanning practices
 that the mass of farmers were using (Gilbert, et al, 1980:
 121-122).

 Thus, where prescription might work in the United States because assumptions
about goals could be taken for granted, this cannot be the case in developing
countries, particularly among marginal farmers. We cannot assume that people
want to expand, to get larger to maximize profit. Further, we must realize that
one farmer expanding pushes another off the land, where even fewer chances of
generating income can be found. Families on Third World, small, marginal farms
seek to minimize risk. Often people will want to use any surplus generated for
off-farm investments, instead of reinvesting them in the farm, which has been
the assumption of profit use in the United States. In the Third World, surplus
generated is used rationally for ceremonial consumption which serves to further
unite the community--to ward off the possibilities of divisions that would
weaken everyone as the whole was weakened. Surplus may be invested to send
children to school. These children ultimately work off the farm, where chances
of higher return to the investment are available. Farming systems research
attempts to integrate differing goals into research programs aimed at marginal,
small farmers.

 Current farm management in the United States has as its goal the greatest
continuing profit (3uller, 1976:1). This assumption for small farms in
developing countries cannot be taken for granted. Other goals may be motivating
the farm family, and these goals must be recognized and caken into account wnen
technology is recommended, research is done, and results are assessed.

 In farm management, as currently practiced in the United States, the
assumption is that profitability is the goal. Profitability has the advantage
of giving us something easy to measure. Weber called it formal rationality
necessary for a modern economy (Weber, 1947:184-186). But, many Third World
marginal farms are not part of the modern economy. Profitability can be measured
by reducing inputs and outputs to dollars and cents, which can be easily
subtracted from one another. This single summary measure makes for easy compar-
isons between farms. In developing countries, because we cannot assume that the
highest continuous profitability is the goal, we have to devise other measures
of success. We can no longer reduce all inputs and outputs neatly and carefully
to economic terms.

 In the United States, early Farm Management Research (FMR) assumed that a
better cropping mix and more judicious use of resources would improve the farm
family's welfare-and maintain soil productivity-through higher sustainable incomes.